IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v28y2009i3p442-456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Innovations Really Pay Off? Total Stock Market Returns to Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Ashish Sood

    () (Goizueta School of Business, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322)

  • Gerard J. Tellis

    () (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

Abstract

Critics often decry an earnings-focused short-term orientation of management that eschews spending on risky, long-term projects such as innovation to boost a firm's stock price. Such critics assume that stock markets react positively to announcements of immediate earnings but negatively to announcements of investments in innovation that have an uncertain long-term pay off. Contrary to this position, we argue that the market's true appreciation of innovation can be estimated by assessing the total market returns to the entire innovation project. We demonstrate this approach via the Fama-French 3-factor model (including Carhart's momentum factor) on 5,481 announcements from 69 firms in five markets and 19 technologies between 1977 and 2006. The total market returns to an innovation project are $643 million, more than 13 times the $49 million from an average innovation event. Returns to negative events are higher in absolute value than those to positive events. Returns to initiation occur 4.7 years ahead of launch. Returns to development activities are the highest and those to commercialization the lowest of all activities. Returns to new product launch are the lowest among all eight events tracked. Returns are higher for smaller firms than larger firms. Returns to the announcing firm are substantially greater than those to competitors across all stages. We discuss the implications of these results.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashish Sood & Gerard J. Tellis, 2009. "Do Innovations Really Pay Off? Total Stock Market Returns to Innovation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 442-456, 05-06.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:3:p:442-456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0407
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    2. Fama, Eugene F., 1998. "Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 283-306, September.
    3. Ramesh Sankaranarayanan, 2007. "Innovation and the Durable Goods Monopolist: The Optimality of Frequent New-Version Releases," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 774-791, 11-12.
    4. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    5. Kathy A. Paulson Gjerde & Susan A. Slotnick & Matthew J. Sobel, 2002. "New Product Innovation with Multiple Features and Technology Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1268-1284, October.
    6. Deepa Chandrasekaran & Gerard J. Tellis, 2008. "Global Takeoff of New Products: Culture, Wealth, or Vanishing Differences?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 844-860, 09-10.
    7. Barry L. Bayus & Gary Erickson & Robert Jacobson, 2003. "The Financial Rewards of New Product Introductions in the Personal Computer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 197-210, February.
    8. Fama, Eugene F, et al, 1969. "The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Klein, Benjamin & Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 615-641, August.
    10. Chaney, Paul K & Devinney, Timothy M & Winer, Russell S, 1991. "The Impact of New Product Introductions on the Market Value of Firms," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 573-610, October.
    11. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 1996. "Quality Awards and the Market Value of the Firm: An Empirical Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 415-436, March.
    12. Kevin Lane Keller & Donald R. Lehmann, 2006. "Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 740-759, 11-12.
    13. Aigbe Akhigbe, 2002. "New product innovations, information signalling and industry competition," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 371-378.
    14. Nicolau, Juan Luis & Sellers, Ricardo, 2002. "The stock market's reaction to quality certification: Empirical evidence from Spain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(3), pages 632-641, November.
    15. Sheng-Syan Chen & Kim Wai Ho & Kueh Hwa Ik, 2005. "The Wealth Effect of New Product Introductions on Industry Rivals," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(3), pages 969-996, May.
    16. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
    17. Hirschey, Mark, 1982. "Intangible Capital Aspects of Advertising and R&D Expenditures," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 375-390, June.
    18. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    19. Doukas, John & Switzer, Lorne, 1992. "The stock market's valuation of R&D spending and market concentration," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 95-114, May.
    20. Austin, David H, 1993. "An Event-Study Approach to Measuring Innovative Output: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 253-258, May.
    21. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    22. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    23. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    24. Ashish Sood & Gareth M. James & Gerard J. Tellis, 2009. "Functional Regression: A New Model for Predicting Market Penetration of New Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 36-51, 01-02.
    25. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    26. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1980. "Measuring security price performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 205-258, September.
    27. Gary Erickson & Robert Jacobson, 1992. "Gaining Comparative Advantage Through Discretionary Expenditures: The Returns to R&D and Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(9), pages 1264-1279, September.
    28. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. " Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:fininn:v:3:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s40854-017-0076-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Christine Moorman & Simone Wies & Natalie Mizik & Fredrika J. Spencer, 2012. "Firm Innovation and the Ratchet Effect Among Consumer Packaged Goods Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 934-951, November.
    3. repec:eee:quaeco:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:219-226 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:3:p:736-:d:135140 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Gupta, Suraksha & Malhotra, Naresh K. & Czinkota, Michael & Foroudi, Pantea, 2016. "Marketing innovation: A consequence of competitiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5671-5681.
    6. repec:spr:rvmgts:v:11:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11846-016-0198-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Seshadri Tirunillai & Gerard J. Tellis, 2012. "Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 198-215, March.
    8. repec:eee:ijrema:v:33:y:2016:i:1:p:59-77 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Saim Kashmiri & Vijay Mahajan, 2014. "A Rose by Any Other Name: Are Family Firms Named After Their Founding Families Rewarded More for Their New Product Introductions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 81-99, September.
    10. Ashish Sood & Gerard J. Tellis, 2011. "Demystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting Disruptive Technologies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 339-354, 03-04.
    11. Michael A. Wiles & Shailendra P. Jain & Saurabh Mishra & Charles Lindsey, 2010. "Stock Market Response to Regulatory Reports of Deceptive Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Omission Bias and Firm Reputation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 828-845, 09-10.
    12. Abbie Griffin & Brett Josephson & Gary Lilien & Fred Wiersema & Barry Bayus & Rajesh Chandy & Ely Dahan & Steve Gaskin & Ajay Kohli & Christopher Miller & Ralph Oliva & Jelena Spanjol, 2013. "Marketing’s roles in innovation in business-to-business firms: Status, issues, and research agenda," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 323-337, December.
    13. Anindita Chakravarty & Rajdeep Grewal, 2011. "The Stock Market in the Driver's Seat! Implications for R&D and Marketing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1594-1609, March.
    14. repec:spr:amsrev:v:6:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s13162-016-0079-y is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Zou, Peng & Li, Guofeng, 2016. "How emerging market investors' value competitors' customer equity: Brand crisis spillover in China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3765-3771.
    16. repec:eee:ijrema:v:34:y:2017:i:3:p:641-659 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:3:p:442-456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.